Enby they/them pronouns - what's the law on this?

I feel like I missed a trick by saying “thanks” to the devout Christian who said her church would pray for my sick son, rather than “you know religion is the mark of a feeble mind, right?”

Or alternatively, she can be fully aware that she has a sex but doesn't feel aligned to gender expression of that sex and chooses to use language about herself which reflects that. We don't know. And ultimately it doesn't matter, as long as she does her job and allows others to do theirs in a working environment conducive to all.

Yes, there needs to be a comfortable middle ground which respects everyone.

For example, my right to believe in Christianity, talk about the church activities I've been to or am going to is protected but it doesn't mean I can go around telling my coworkers they are going hell, regardless of whether the reasons I assert are covered in law or not!

Yes the woman in question can believe that she doesn't have a sex but she cant compelle others to agree with her or demand they use her chosen pronouns that would be bullying and harassment along with direct beliefs discrimination and a breach of the other person's article 9&10 human rights. She will just have to get used to her name being used in lue of her chosen pronouns.

“If the name or sex of the individual is unknown then it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural form.”

Why? If the claim is using the plural form for an individual is bad grammar or confusing or difficult or whatever, why is it suddenly ok to use the plural form for an individual in the circumstances you outline? How is it suddenly ok to combine plural verb forms with a pronoun referring to just one person?

Not sure why it’s so hard for you/your team to respect this person’s wishes (if, indeed, those are their wishes - see, wasn’t so hard to say their, was it?).

Remember we’re talking about a situation where Jane has specified her wish to be referred to in the plural.

If the name or sex of the individual is unknown then it is perfectly acceptable to use the plural form. For a single individual whose name and sex is known, referring to them in the plural is peculiar. Introducing that person in the plural to another who may not be aware of Jane’s delusion about not being female, just makes it sound as though you can’t construct a sentence properly.

And if Jane was overweight I’d consider it downright rude of you.

I had this for someone who had left my workplace permanently - enby ally correction when the person wasn't even on the same land mass as me

Again wrong the forstater appeal tribunal found that they are covered by the equality act.
You really are making a fool of yourself as even if they weren't lack of belief in gender ideology is protected under both the equality act and the human rights act. Furthermore compelled speach and forced religious observance are prohibited under the human rights act.
So no nobody has to use preferred pronouns

It also says about toilets:

Everyone at work should be able to use facilities they feel comfortable with. Making a transgender employee use facilities they're not comfortable with could be discrimination.

So might need some updating throughout.

It really is difficult actually. It means rephrasing sentences that would come naturally to you. In writing this is simply extra effort and time, but in speech it is very difficult to avoid pronouns.

Of course you need to avoid using correct-sex pronouns not just in the person's presence, but when they aren't even there, as otherwise you risk a manager, an HR person or just some random enby-ally dobbing you in for using the wrong pronouns. And if you use the wrong-sex pronouns it is, for many of us including me, a head-fuck.

people who are already in positions of power sociologically

Punching up is ok, neh?

That's nonsense

Secret option 4 - “”

Literally what most people would think.

People use and hear they/them/their used in the singular every day. They manage not to spend hours looking for all the ‘others’ being referred to.

Inclusions doesn't mean the Included person gets to enforce their religious beliefs on anyone else or demand that others participate in said religion. Its about reasonable adjustments which in this case would mean using no pronouns.
This may upset the nb or trans person but thats tough luck because other people have rights too

I'm curious: His/Her Majesty, His/Her Highness, His/Her Grace, his Lorsdhip/her Ladyship - these are the polite ways to refer to titled people in the third person. All gendered. I don't see how this helps avoid gendering someone.

Have just seen this from ACAS:

As an employer, you cannot force an employee to use someone's new pronouns. However, you can expect them not to use the old pronouns.

https://www.acas.org.uk/gender-reassignment-discrimination/preventing-discrimination

But they have added a note saying that since the Supreme Court ruling they may have to change their advice!

It hurts literally no one if they want to identify as non binary, and is so easy to do. Don’t be that person

Totally wrong! Demanding special pronouns means people walk on eggshells around you, having to check themselves every time they speak. More than that, it carries an implication of “I’m special and not like other girls/women’, and it makes people subscribe to a regressive belief about ‘boy things’ and ‘girl things’ - stupid gender stereotypes I thought we’d ditched decades ago.

It also implies that everybody else - the non non-binaries, if you will - fulfil all the stereotypes associated with their sex.

Actually gender critical beliefs are protected under the characteristic of religion and belief. Also being forced to participate in someone else's religion is against your human rights(article 9) and so is someone attempting to compelle someone else's speach(article10).
Any policies that demand you comply with compelled speach would be illegal discrimination on multiple grounds.
What an employer can ask is that you refrain from using any pronouns and use the person's name only

When presenting one person to another but using a plural form for the introduction:

• There are multiple Janes, this is one of them
• There is one Jane who believes she is more than one person
• The introducer needs a grammar lesson

Surely you'd just say "sorry no I haven't seen them" rather than repeating "the receptionist"? If the question was "have you seen Lisa?" you wouldn't reply, "sorry I haven't seen Lisa" would you? You'd say "sorry I haven't seen her".

I don't remember the threads but the tribunal said at 178:

We thought it was very clear that Parliament intended gender reassignment to be a spectrum moving away from birth sex, and that a person could be at any point on that spectrum. That would be so, whether they described themselves as “non-binary” i.e. not at point A or point Z, “gender fluid” i.e. at different places between point A and point Z at different times, or “transitioning” i.e. moving from point A, but not necessarily ending at point Z, where A and Z are biological sex. We concluded that it was beyond any doubt that somebody in the situation of the Claimant was (and is) protected by the legislation because they are on that spectrum and they are on a journey which will not be the same in any two cases. It will end up where it does. The wording of section 7(1) accommodates that interpretation without any violence to the statutory language Consequently, there is jurisdiction to hear the gender reassignment claim.

It was only a first-level ET so not a precedent, but that seems pretty clear to me that the Judge wasn't very concerned about the details and confident that someone who doesn't identify as their biological sex is protected under the PC of GR, regardless.